The Case Against AD&D - Ability Scores, pt. 7

Dump Stat?

Charisma has an interesting history, and depending on the edition, had the most mechanical effect, or the least. It was also the most likely of the ability scores to be forgotten during play. In Basic D&D, Charisma determined NPC reactions, the morale of henchmen, and in some iterations, the maximum number of henchmen that could be hired. It changed very little with AD&D, but AD&D 2e's focus on story XP rewards and fighting monsters instead of hauling treasure (relegating that rule to an option in the DMG), it became less important for the PCs to hire henchmen. Additionally, the more immediate gains of exceptional Strength and high Constitution or high Intelligence and Wisdom meant that players were less likely to want to share treasure and XP with henchmen.

A Rundown on Charisma

So what exactly does Charisma do in AD&D 2e? Let's take a look.

The first derived score we have on the chart is the maximum number of henchmen. Henchmen in AD&D are essentially adventurers of lower level who are attracted to the PC's reputation. They are paid in shares (half a share) of treasure. There's a bunch of assumptions in there that are key to how all of this works, and before I move on to the other components of Charisma I'd like to talk about them.

First off, shares. Shares of treasure, specifically. In older editions, XP is determined by treasure being removed from dungeons and other adventuring locations, and brought back to civilization (some groups have a variant of this where you have to spend the treasure on frivolities to get XP out of it). How does a group go about dividing the treasure among themselves and their NPC staff? There are some guidelines in both editions of AD&D, but the simplest is to divide treasure into equal shares among the PCs. Henchmen would get either a full share, or half a share, and retainers and hirelings would get paid their wage (some classes attract retainers, warriors and others attracted to the charisma and reputation of the PC, but not as reliable or capable as henchmen; hirelings are just that, hired help. They could be laborers, guards, or specialists like sages and smiths. They too are paid a wage).

So, you can see how in an older edition like the various flavors of Basic or even AD&D 1e, where treasure equals XP, divvying up the XP to NPCs can seem like a blow. In 2e however, it becomes mostly a case of losing some cash and moving on. Since being introduced to OSR, my opinion on treasure as XP has changed. I had been aware that it was used in AD&D 1e, and that 2e had an optional rule, but I had been against the whole idea because it seemed to unnecessarily focus on treasure and its acquisition.

But, like all things, if you dig a bit deeper there's usually more to it than that.

Treasure as XP is a fast and fair method of determining risk vs. reward. Since monsters generally give less XP in systems that use treasure as XP, the reward for the risk is very poor. But, retrieving treasure without fights or without tripping traps can provide a great deal of wealth and XP. Interestingly enough encumbrance becomes more important where treasure as XP is used, since it not only constricts your ability to bring tools to deal with challenges in the adventuring location, but it also restricts your ability to bring treasure out without getting into fights (the longer you spend in the dungeon, the higher the chance you'll encounter hostile wandering monsters).

So, henchmen, retainers, and hirelings can alleviate this situation somewhat, at the cost of having to pay wages and shares. But, with more hands, you can carry more tools and carry more treasure. It also potentially spreads damage among the party. All of this interacts, and if you remove one portion of it, as AD&D 2e does, it causes the other portions to have a smaller, less impactful role in the rule set. Without treasure as XP, it's less important to have more hands to retrieve treasure. With more XP for fighting monsters, there's less reason to avoid them and more reason to ambush them with the intent to kill them for the XP. There's thus, less reason to bring XP and treasure siphoning NPCs along for the ride.

Bloody minded players might say "Yes, but you don't have to pay wages or shares to dead NPCs", but that leads directly into the discussion of the remaining derived scores.

Loyalty Base determines the bonus to the morale score of any given NPC. Morale checks are made by rolling 2d10 and anything below the NPC's morale score is a successful check (in other words, they don't panic or run or fail to do what they were ordered to do). Obviously, some roleplaying should inform how this works, but that's the quick and dirty of it. So, as you've likely surmised by this point, treating NPCs badly or putting them into suicidal situations will generally cause their morale to deteriorate until they fail a check and either balk, or flee.

Which in turn will harm the PC's reputation, leading to henchmen being less likely to seek employment under them. I suppose, yes, you could kill henchmen and NPCs who balk or attempt to flee, thus preventing them from spreading their stories of the PC's cruelty and insanity, but mysterious deaths and the fact that few if any people come back from expeditions involving that PC or party is going to be grist for the rumor mill.

The final derived score is Reaction Adjustment, and although carrying the same name with Dexterity's Reaction Adjustment, it applies to rolls similar to morale and loyalty checks, but it affects how NPCs react to the PCs. Rolling low is better, but there's no score you have to roll under, and it isn't a simple pass/fail. In specific, Reaction Adjustment is not for general PC/NPC interactions, but specifically for dungeon encounters. Even then, it's not always necessary to roll, since some NPCs are going to be hostile regardless (for example, if the PCs desecrated a temple as we did in one of Carlos' games).

Final Words

I dislike how it scales (what else is new?) and it doesn't follow any sort of internal logic that I can discern. Particularly where the number of henchmen are concerned, there's an enormous gap between the 10 of 17 Charisma, and the 15 of 18 Charisma. Reaction Adjustment and Loyalty Base also scale rapidly at the high end of the range.

The scores over 18 scale in a regular and predictable fashion, but they scale to heights that are in a word, absurd. You end up with 50 henchmen at 25 Charisma, Loyalty Base becomes 20, which effectively means none of your followers can ever fail a morale or loyalty check, and the Reaction Adjustment ensures that it will almost always be the most favorable outcome depending on the PC's behavior.

Granted, these scores are meant for gods, but it is possible for PCs to attain them, either through magical items or spells.

So, here we are, at the end of the ability scores. But is this series done? No. Not quite yet. I've got some more things to say, and that'll be saved for Part 8. After that, I intend to take a look at the classes, but there might be a break in between for catching up on stories I've related before.